Two days ago, we covered the fact that Fox News might face lawsuits that could threaten its very existence if parties could prove that Fox deliberately lied to coerce people’s beliefs, and those beliefs led them to get sick and die. That article shot around the country and the movement to hold Fox liable is building. Now it is inevitable that some parties will sue Fox (and perhaps Hannity, in particular) in an attempt to hold them liable.

We also noted that because people would be accusing the network of reckless or intentional behavior (not mere negligence), a portion of the damages would be punitive, meant to punish Fox and any other defendants. The total amount of damages would be near unlimited.

Now, the greatest living law professor, Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, takes the process one step further and asks a “dead” serious question:

If Trumpnews (aka Fox) could face a legal bloodbath for spreading deadly lies about the virus, what about the Trump Administration and its enablers? What about the Liar in Chief? Legal immunity shouldn’t exceed COVID-19 immunity! https://t.co/bde0bOaTtJ

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) March 31, 2020

He wants victims to sue Trump.

Let me help unpack this a bit and put my lawyer hat back on for just two minutes. Prof. Tribe is not talking about suing the government, or the presidency for its response. Unless a government employee (FBI agent, county sheriff) deliberately violates your civil rights, there is broad immunity for every government employee in exercising the duties of their office.

But what Tribe is talking about is suing Trump personally (“in his personal capacity”), for those things Trump did which were not part of his presidential duties.

As an example, one would not be able to sue Trump for not initiating testing as soon as possible, or sending needed supplies to China. That would be an official act that – while abhorrent – wouldn’t be subject to review by a judge or jury. The “presidency” would be immune to a lawsuit. But that’s not all Trump has done, is it?

What about the rallies? What about the lies told at the rallies? What about the tweets? Why would a tweet be considered an official act in office? A rally is unquestionably not an official presidential act, it’s campaigning. This is exactly what professor Tribe is referencing.

A successful lawsuit would be one filed by the family of someone who died or someone who nearly died, with proof that the person relied upon Trump’s assurances all this was a hoax (a MAGA head), and there would need to be proof that Trump knew it wasn’t a hoax, but said it was a hoax to keep the stock market up or keep the economy going, ironically, such proof might actually be found from discovery in a suit against Fox.

Professor Tribe wonders what might happen in that kind of lawsuit. It might seem a little fantastical now. But imagine a year and a half from now, with Trump out of office (we pray), and a nation struggling to recover, starts to really examine what happened to cause 300k to 500k deaths.

At that point, any “benefit of the doubt” would likely be gone, and there will be a hard look taken at those rallies, and the lies that rolled up one after another, the trust placed, and the lives lost. Judges and juries will be hurt, and angry. At that point, and probably not until that point, lawsuits against Trump personally could succeed. And just like Fox, the damages could be near limitless.

Of course, Trump might fear other legal actions far more. I have continually said that after a commission is formed to examine the government’s response, there could be criminal charges resulting from a close examination of choices made and the reasons for those choices. “Immunity” only applies to lawsuits, not crimes.

****

Peace, y’all

Jason

[email protected] and on Twitter @MiciakZoom